A bridge too far

I started the introduction post with the intention of writing this entry, but I didn’t want it to go very long. One thing you’re going to find out reading this blog, is not only am I a blowhard, I can be a long winded blowhard. It’s my nature to want to explain everything. Why? I think I’m pedantic. [1]

Basically, this whole mess in Minnesota has me thinking about how our government has a tendency to spend our tax dollars. Especially those tax dollars that are collected in the name of “Road Safety.” Now the Minnesota state officials were quick to point out that this section of the bridge was “under repair” when this tragedy occurred, and are not speculating if this may have contributed to the disaster or not but let’s face it, either way this a pretty big oops for whoever screwed up the engineering either in the original design or the reconstruction.

Thing is though this, now national, catastrophe has a lot of local news agencies stirred up about the state of the bridges in their local markets, because it makes good news. What this doesn’t make is for good government decisions. Any time a government agency tries to fix something so that some disaster that occurred somewhere else doesn’t occur here, all they’re really saying is: “Open up your pockets and give us your money.” I’m quite sure when this story hit the national news, at least 49 bureaucrats around the country started salivating at the thought they could now use this disaster as an excuse to get more money out their local state constituencies.

Now some of this can be directed at how our current federal tax system works in the way they construct boondoggles and pork in the name of state and county subsidies, which is a rant for a totally different time, and one I’m sure we’ll get into at some point in the future, because my fix for that little system while simplistic in design would be a bitch to get through congress in any form.

The thing is there is already enough money in the system to fix and or maintain our roads and bridges as they exist now. Or at least there should be. Or there would be if the taxes collected in the name of such things actually went to paying for such things. They’re not. At least not in Oregon where I live, which is where I will always turn to when it comes time to pony up examples and what not. Why? Because it effects me and therefore what I’m gonna know. If you want to know about what happens to the money in your neck of the world do your own research.

Oregon’s constitutionally dedicated State Highway Fund derives most of its revenue from three major highway user taxes: vehicle registration fees, motor vehicle fuel taxes (primarily the gasoline tax), and motor carrier fees (the weight-mile tax). There are some other taxes as well, depending on what you drive and what not, but for the most part, most the money that is for Oregon roads and bridges comes from these sources. This is all fine and good. If the money that was brought in by these measures actually were spent on these measures. They’re not.

The problem, at least in Oregon, is that a lot of the revenue collected across all sources in up in that nebulous black hole known as the “All Funds Budget.” Where all sorts of things like the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon State Police, and a bunch of other departments find themselves trying to cut themselves a piece of this pie.

The other issue is non-roads related projects. Mostly mass transit and bicycle related projects. A huge portion of the ODOT budget seems to find itself allocated for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with where the money came from and isolated to a very small geographic area of the state in part because that is where a good portion of the voter base is.

There are other issues involved, such as the fact that the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) [2] is a bloated piece of garbage that continues to suck larger are larger portions of everyone’s budget. Meanwhile roads continue to deteriorate, and bridges, such as the Sellwood Bridge [3] in Portland is a bright shining example of Government ignoring the problem because they don’t want to deal with the real answers.

The real answers are simple. Spend the money where it is suppose to go, fixing current roads and bridges, and adding new ones as capacity needs increase. However, new roads and bridges aren’t as sexy or politically correct as light rail, bike paths and 9 Million dollar tram project [5] so that doctors that live in new million dollar waterfront condos don’t have to take a stinky bus to the hospital on the hill.

Now I need an Ibuprofen, I’ve got a headache.

--------------------
[1] Hi Les! [4]
[2] PERS issues are huge blog post of their own.
[3] An 82-year old bridge that scores a 2 on the 100 point federal bridge sufficiency scale, yet it is still deemed safe for cars and trucks, as many as 31,000 that cross it on a daily basis. Just don’t count mine as one of them.
[4] Welcome everyone to the footnotes portion of my rant. This is where the fun is. [6]
[5] Actual Cost: 60 Million dollars [7].
[6] Hi Sherry! Thought I forgot about you huh?
[7] Don’t get me started. The amount of future rants I see coming just from this one, could keep me writing all night. I’m supposed to be working here.